Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38433 

(2) For the purpose of determining 

whether a refund of the baggage fee is 

due, a delayed bag is considered to have 

been delivered to a passenger or a 

passenger’s agent if: 

(i) The bag has been transported to a 

location, other than the destination 

airport, based on agreement by the 

passenger and the carrier, whether or 

not the passenger is present to take 

possession of the bag; 

(ii) The bag has arrived at its intended 

final destination airport and is available 

for pick up, and the carrier has provided 

notice to the passenger or the 

passenger’s agent (e.g., via push notice 

through a mobile application, email, or 

text message) that the bag has arrived at 

that airport and is ready for pick up; or 

(iii) The bag has arrived at the 

intended final destination airport and 

the carrier has provided notice to the 

passenger or the passenger’s agent (e.g. 

via push notice through a mobile 

application, email, or text message) that 

the bag has arrived at that airport and 

will be delivered to a location that the 

passenger and carrier have agreed on. 

(b) Notification of carrier by passenger 

about lost or significantly delayed bag. 

A covered carrier’s obligation to provide 

a prompt refund for a lost bag or a 

significantly delayed bag does not begin 

until passengers provide notification of 

the lost or significantly delayed bag. If 

the entity that collected the baggage fee 

is the same entity that received a 

mishandled baggage report from the 

passenger, the filing of the mishandled 

baggage report constitutes a notification 

from the passenger for the purpose of 

receiving a refund, if due, for the 

baggage fee. In all other situations, 

passengers must inform the carrier that 

collected the baggage fee of the lost or 

delayed bag; or, if a ticket agent 

collected the bag fee, passengers must 

inform the carrier that operated the last 

flight segment about the lost or delayed 

bag for the purpose of receiving a refund 

for the baggage fee for a significantly 

delayed bag. 

§ 260.6 Providing prompt refunds. 

When a refund of a fee for an ancillary 

service, including a fee for lost or 

significantly delayed checked baggage, 

is due pursuant to this part, the refund 

must be issued promptly consistent 

with the requirement of 14 CFR 

259.5(b)(5). 

[FR Doc. 2021–13736 Filed 7–20–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2021–0215; FRL–8696–01– 

R6] 

Air Plan Approval; Louisiana; Regional 

Haze Five-Year Progress Report State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve a revision to a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the Secretary of the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality (LDEQ) on March 25, 2021. The 

SIP submittal addresses requirements of 

federal regulations that direct the State 

to submit a periodic report that assesses 

progress toward regional haze 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) and 

includes a determination of adequacy of 

the existing implementation plan. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 20, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2021–0215, at https://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

grady.james@epa.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit any information electronically 

that is considered Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or any other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment with multimedia 

submissions and should include all 

discussion points desired. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

their contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing systems). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact James E. Grady, (214) 665–6745, 

grady.james@epa.gov. For the full EPA 

public comment policy, information 

about CBI or multimedia submissions, 

and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may not be 

publicly available due to docket file size 

restrictions or content (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James E. Grady, EPA Region 6 Office, 

Regional Haze and SO2 Section, 1201 

Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas TX 72570, 

214–665–6745; grady.james@epa.gov. 

Out of an abundance of caution for 

members of the public and our staff, the 

EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the 

public to reduce the risk of transmitting 

COVID–19. We encourage the public to 

submit comments via https://

www.regulations.gov, as there will be a 

delay in processing mail and no courier 

or hand deliveries will be accepted. 

Please call or email the contact listed 

above if you need alternative access to 

material indexed but not provided in 

the docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ mean ‘‘the EPA.’’ 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The Regional Haze Program 

B. Previous Actions on Louisiana Regional 

Haze 

C. Louisiana’s Regional Haze Progress 

Report SIP 

II. Evaluation of Louisiana’s Regional Haze 

Progress Report SIP Revision 

A. Class I Areas 

B. Status of Implementation of Measures 

1. Non-EGU Controls 

a. Phillips 66—Alliance Refinery 

b. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC 

c. Eco Services Operations Corp. 

2. EGU Controls 

a. NRG Big Cajun II 

b. Cleco—Brame Energy Center 

c. Entergy—Willow Glen 

d. Entergy—Little Gypsy 

e. Entergy—Ninemile Point 

f. Entergy—Waterford 1 and 2 

g. Entergy—Michoud 

h. Entergy—Nelson 

3. CAIR and CSAPR 

4. Smoke Management Plan (SMP) 

5. Additional Federal Measures 

6. EPA’s Conclusion on the Status of 

Implementation of Measures 

C. Emission Reductions From 

Implementation of Measures 

D. Visibility Conditions and Changes 

E. Emission Tracking 

F. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

G. Assessment of Current Strategy To Meet 

RPGs 

H. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy 

I. Determination of Adequacy of Existing 

Implementation Plan 

J. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

III. EPA’s Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
38434 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1Fine particles are less than or equal to 2.5 

microns (mm) in diameter and usually form 

secondary in nature indirectly from other sources. 

Particles less than or equal to 10 mm in diameter 

are referred to as PM10. Particles greater than PM2.5

but less than PM10 are referred to as coarse mass. 

Coarse mass can contribute to regional haze as well 

and is made up of primary particles directly emitted 

into the air. Fine particles tend to be man-made, 

while coarse particles tend to originate from natural 

events like wildfires and dust storms. Coarse mass 

settles out from the air more rapidly than fine 

particles and usually will be found relatively close 

to emission sources. Fine particles can be 

transported long distances by wind and can be 

found in the air thousands of miles from where they 

were formed. 

2Organic carbon (OC) can be emitted directly as 

particles or formed through reactions involving 

gaseous emissions. Elemental carbon (EC), in 

contrast to organic carbon, is exclusively of primary 

origin and emitted by the incomplete combustion 

of carbon-based fuels. Elemental carbon particles 

are especially prevalent in diesel exhaust and 

smoke from wild and prescribed fires. 

3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in km or 

miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against 

the sky by a typical observer. 

4 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). 

5An interactive ‘‘story map’’ depicting efforts and 

recent progress by EPA and states to improve 

visibility at national parks and wilderness areas 

may be visited at: http://arcg.is/29tAbS3. 

6Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of 

national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness 

areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 

acres, and all international parks that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in 

consultation with the Department of Interior, 

promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility was 

identified as an important value. The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. Although 

states and tribes may designate additional areas as 

Class I, the requirements of the visibility program 

set forth in the CAA applies only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ When the term ‘‘Class I area’’ is used in 

this action, it means ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.’’ [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and 

CAA Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)]. 

7See the July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final 

action (64 FR 35714), as amended on July 6, 2005 

(70 FR 39156), October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60631), June 

7, 2012 (77 FR 33656) and on January 10, 2017 (82 

FR 3079). 

8See 40 CFR 51.308(b). The EPA’s regional haze 

regulations require subsequent updates to the 

regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(g)–(i). 

9See 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(7) (listing the set of 

‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially subject-toBART). 

10See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, II. How to Identify 

BART-eligible Sources. 

11Under the BART Guidelines, states may select 

a visibility impact threshold, measured in 

deciviews (dv), below which a BART-eligible 

source would not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The 

state must document this threshold in the SIP and 

state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 

source with visibility impacts that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a BART 

determination review. The BART Guidelines 

acknowledge varying circumstances affecting 

different Class I areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting the Class I 

areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual 

sources’ impacts. Any visibility impact threshold 

set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 dv. 

See 40 CFR 51, Appendix Y, section III.A.1. 

I. Background 

A. The Regional Haze Program 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that occurs over a wide geographic area 

primarily from the pollution of fine 

particulates (PM2.5) 1 emitted into the air 

from a variety of sources. These fine 

particulates which cause haze consist of 

sulfates (SO4

2-), nitrates (NO3-

), organic 

carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and 

soil dust.2 PM2.5 precursors consist of 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), ammonia (NH3), and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs). Airborne 

PM2.5 can scatter and absorb the 

incident light and, therefore, lead to 

atmospheric opacity and horizontal 

visibility degradation which limits 

visual distance and reduces color, 

clarity, and contrast of view. PM2.5 can 

cause serious adverse health effects and 

mortality in humans. It also contributes 

to environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Emissions that affect visibility include a 

wide variety of natural and man-made 

sources. Natural sources can include 

windblown dust from dust storms and 

soot from wildfires. Man-made sources 

can include major and minor stationary 

sources, mobile sources, and area 

sources. Reducing PM2.5 and its 

precursor gases in the atmosphere is an 

effective method of improving visibility. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE), shows that 

visibility impairment caused by air 

pollution occurs virtually all of the time 

at most national parks and wilderness 

areas. In 1999, the average visual range 3

in many Class I areas (i.e., national 

parks and memorial parks, wilderness 

areas, and international parks meeting 

certain size criteria) in the western 

United States was 100–150 kilometers 

(km), or about one-half to two-thirds of 

the visual range that would exist under 

estimated natural conditions.4 In most 

of the eastern Class I areas of the United 

States, the average visual range was less 

than 30 km, or about one-fifth of the 

visual range that would exist under 

estimated natural conditions. CAA 

programs have reduced emissions of 

some haze-causing pollution, lessening 

some visibility impairment, and 

resulting in partially improved average 

visual ranges.5

In section 169A of the 1977 CAA 

Amendments, Congress created a 

program for protecting visibility in the 

nation’s national parks and wilderness 

areas. This section of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, visibility 

impairment in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas where impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.6 Congress 

added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 

that added visibility protection 

provisions, and the EPA promulgated 

final regulations addressing regional 

haze as part of the 1999 Regional Haze 

Rule, which was most recently updated 

in 2017.7 The Regional Haze Rule 

revised the existing 1980 visibility 

regulations and established a more 

comprehensive visibility protection 

program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in the EPA’s broader visibility 

protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300 

through 51.309. The regional haze 

regulations require states to demonstrate 

reasonable progress toward meeting the 

national goal of a return to natural 

visibility conditions for mandatory 

Class I Federal areas both within and 

outside states by 2064. The CAA 

requirement in section 169A(b)(2) to 

submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 

fifty states, the District of Columbia, and 

the Virgin Islands. States were required 

to submit the first implementation plan 

addressing visibility impairment caused 

by regional haze no later than December 

17, 2007.8

Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA 

directs states to evaluate the use of Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

controls at certain categories of existing 

major stationary sources 9 built between 

1962 and 1977. These large, often 

under-controlled, older stationary 

sources are required to procure, install, 

and operate BART controls to address 

visibility impacts from them. Under the 

Regional Haze Rule, any of these BARTeligible sources 10 that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in a Class I area 

are determined to be subject-to-BART.11

States are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for each source 

classified as subject-to-BART. 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires states (or 

EPA in the case of a FIP) to identify the 

level of control representing BART after 

considering the five statutory factors set 

out in CAA section 169A(g)(2). States 

must establish emission limits, a 

schedule of compliance, and other 

measures consistent with the BART 

determination process for each source 

subject-to-BART. In lieu of requiring 

source-specific BART controls, states 

also have the flexibility to adopt 

alternative measures, as long as the 

alternative provides greater reasonable 

progress toward improving visibility 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38435 

12The required content of BART alternative 

measures is codified at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). 

13 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). 

14 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) (2006). 

15 77 FR 33642, 33656 (June 7, 2012). 

16 77 FR 39425 (July 3, 2012), available at https:// 

www.regulations.gov in docket EPA–R06–OAR– 

2008–0510. 

17 77 FR 39426 (July 3, 2012). 

18 81 FR 74750 (October 27, 2016). Proposed 

approval for the BART determinations for non-EGU 

facilities. 

19A deciview is a haze index derived from 

calculated light extinction, such that uniform 

changes in haziness correspond to uniform 

incremental changes in perception across the entire 

range of conditions, from pristine to highly 

impaired. The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule 

provides additional details about the deciview (64 

FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999). 

20On December 5, 2005, Conoco Phillips, the 

United States of America and the State of Louisiana, 

entered into a consent decree as part of the National 

Refinery Initiative for Alliance. See U.S. et al. v 

ConocoPhillips Company, Civil Action No. H–05– 

0258 (S.D. Tx). EPA approved Louisiana’s BART 

determination that the controls and conditions 

required by the consent decree satisfy SO2, NOX, 

and PM BART. In order to make the limits 

enforceable for Regional Haze SIP purposes, 

Phillips 66 and LDEQ entered into to an AOC to 

mirror the limitations imposed by the consent 

decree. 

21On December 23, 2009, Mosaic entered into a 

consent decree with the EPA, LDEQ and other 

parties. See U.S. et al. v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 

Civil Action No. 09–6662 (E.D. La). EPA approved 

LDEQ’s BART determination that the controls and 

conditions required by the consent decree satisfy 

SO2, NOX, and PM BART. In order to make the 

limits enforceable for regional haze SIP purposes, 

Mosaic and LDEQ entered into to an AOC to mirror 

the limitations imposed by the consent decree. 

22On July 23, 2007, Eco Services entered into a 

consent decree with the EPA, LDEQ and other 

parties. See U.S. et al. v. Rhodia Inc., Civil Action 

No. 2:07CV134 WL (H.D. In). EPA approved LDEQ’s 

BART determination that the controls and 

conditions required by the consent decree satisfy 

SO2 BART. In order to make the limits enforceable 

for regional haze SIP purposes, Eco Services and 

LDEQ entered into an AOC to mirror the limitations 

imposed by the consent decree. 

23 82 FR 22936 (May 19, 2017). Proposed 

approval for the BART determinations for EGU 

facilities. 

24On March 6, 2013, Louisiana Generating 

entered a consent decree establishing emission 

limits for SO2, NOX, and PM BART for several CAA 

violations at Big Cajun II. See U.S. et al. v. 

Louisiana Generating, LLC, Civil Action No. 09– 

100–JJB–RLB (M.D. La.). 

25We could not finalize that portion of the 

proposed SIP approval until we finalized the 

proposed finding that CSAPR continued to be better 

than BART (81 FR 78954) because finalization of 

Continued 

than BART. Namely, the alternative 

must be ‘‘better than BART.’’ 12

B. Previous Actions on Louisiana 

Regional Haze 

LDEQ submitted its initial regional 

haze SIP on June 13, 2008, to address 

the requirements of the first regional 

haze implementation period. EPA acted 

on the 2008 regional haze SIP submittal 

in two separate actions. The first EPA 

action on the 2008 regional haze SIP 

was a limited disapproval 13 based on 

the June 7, 2012, revision to the 

Regional Haze Rule and deficiencies 

arising from a remand of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 

The remand affected LDEQ’s source 

specific EGU BART requirements for 

SO2 and NOX because the 2008 

Louisiana Regional Haze SIP relied on 

participation in CAIR as an alternative 

to meet the EGU SO2 and NOX BART 

requirements.14 It was determined in the 

June 7, 2012, rule revision that CSAPR 

would provide for greater reasonable 

progress than BART, so that allowed 

CSAPR participation to be used as a 

BART alternative to source-specific SO2

and NOX BART for EGUs, on a 

pollutant-specific basis.15 LDEQ 

established reliance upon CSAPR for 

ozone (O3) season NOX as an alternative 

to meet the NOX BART requirements for 

their EGU sources and the State 

addressed SO2 and PM BART 

requirements for EGUs in separate 

submittals, as described in subsequent 

paragraphs. 

On July 3, 2012, EPA issued a second 

action on the 2008 Louisiana Regional 

Haze SIP which was a partial approval/ 

disapproval 16 because the SIP submittal 

met some but not all of the applicable 

requirements of sections 169A and 169B 

of CAA and regional haze provisions in 

40 CFR 51.300 through 51.308. In that 

action, we disapproved LDEQ’s longterm strategy because it relied on 

deficient BART analyses for four nonEGU sources and did not reflect 

appropriate BART emissions reductions 

from those facilities.17

On August 11, 2016, LDEQ submitted 

a SIP revision which addressed the 

deficiencies related to SO2, NOX, and 

PM BART for the four non-EGU 

facilities: Sid Richardson, Phillips 66 

Company-Alliance Refinery, Mosaic, 

and Eco Services, LLC. We proposed 

approval of the August 11, 2016 SIP 

revision for the BART determinations at 

these non-EGU facilities on October 27, 

2016.18 Based on the BART analysis and 

modeling provided by Sid Richardson, 

LDEQ concluded that the facility was 

not subject-to-BART because its 

modeled visibility impacts were less 

than 0.5 deciviews (dv).19 We proposed 

to approve this determination for Sid 

Richardson. We also proposed approval 

of LDEQ’s determination that the 

current controls and operating 

conditions for the subject-to-BART units 

at the Phillips 66 Company-Alliance 

Refinery constituted SO2, NOX, and PM 

BART.20 We further proposed approval 

of LDEQ’s determination that current 

controls and operating conditions at the 

Mosaic facility constituted SO2, NOX, 

and PM BART.21 Finally, we proposed 

approval of LDEQ’s determination that 

the current controls and operating 

conditions at the Eco Services, LLC 

facility constituted SO2 BART.22

On February 10, 2017, LDEQ 

submitted a SIP revision that addressed 

the deficiencies related to SO2 and PM 

BART for the EGU facilities. The SIP 

submittal also relied on CSAPR for O3

season NOX to satisfy NOX BART for 

EGU sources. Seventeen EGU facilities 

were identified as BART-eligible and 

LDEQ identified seven of those EGU 

facilities as being subject-to-BART and 

required to install, operate, and 

maintain BART controls: Cleco Brame 

Energy Center and six different Entergy 

facilities (Little Gypsy, Ninemile Point, 

Waterford, Willow Glen, Michoud, and 

Nelson). On May 19, 2017, we proposed 

approval of the February 10, 2017, 

submittal for the BART determinations 

for these EGU facilities with the 

exception of the portion related to 

Entergy’s Nelson facility.23 We also 

approved controls and conditions for 

two coal-fired units required by a 

consent decree 24 for Big Cajun II, a 

BART eligible EGU facility that 

screened out from being subject-toBART because its modeled visibility 

impacts were less than 0.5 dv. Louisiana 

Generating, who operates Big Cajun II, 

entered into an agreed order on consent 

(AOC) with LDEQ to make the existing 

control requirements and maximum 

daily emission limits for SO2, NOX, 

PM2.5 and PM10 from the consent decree 

permanent and federally enforceable for 

the two coal-fired units. For the 

facilities subject-to-BART, we proposed 

to approve LDEQ’s SO2 and PM BART 

determinations for units at Cleco’s 

Brame Energy Center and at four 

Entergy facilities which included 

Willow Glen, Little Gypsy, Ninemile 

Point, and Waterford plants. We also 

proposed to approve the State’s AOCs 

for each of these five facilities. LDEQ 

provided additional information from 

Entergy indicating that the Entergy 

Michoud units would be 

decommissioned, as reflected in an 

email dated October 9, 2017, submitted 

by LDEQ to supplement its February 

2017 SIP revision. As a result, we 

proposed to approve the SIP’s finding 

that SO2, NOX, and PM BART were 

satisfied for the Michoud units since 

they were no longer in operation. Lastly, 

we proposed to find that the EGU NOX

BART requirements would be satisfied 

by our determination that LDEQ’s 

participation in CSAPR’s O3 season NOX

program was a permissible alternative to 

source-specific NOX BART.25


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
38436 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

that proposal provided the basis for LDEQ to rely 

on CSAPR participation as an alternative to sourcespecific EGU BART for NOX. 

26 82 FR 32294 (July 13, 2017) Proposed approval 

for BART determination for Nelson Unit 6. 

27 82 FR 60520 (December 21, 2017), available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/in docket EPA–R06– 

OAR–2017–0129. EPA’s approval of these SIP 

revisions became effective on January 22, 2018. 

28 81 FR 74750 (October 27, 2016). Proposed 

approval for the BART determinations for non-EGU 

facilities. 

29 82 FR 22936 (May 19, 2017) Proposed approval 

for the BART determinations for EGU facilities and 

82 FR 32294 (July 13, 2017) Proposed approval for 

BART determination for Nelson Unit 6. 

30The Regional Haze Rule requires states to 

provide in the progress report an assessment of 

whether the current ‘‘implementation plan’’ is 

sufficient to enable the states to meet all established 

RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term 

‘‘implementation plan’’ is defined for purposes of 

the Regional Haze Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or 

Tribal Implementation Plan. As such, the Agency 

may consider measures in any issued FIP as well 

as those in a state’s regional haze plan in assessing 

the adequacy of the ‘‘existing implementation plan’’ 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). 

On June 20, 2017, LDEQ submitted a 

SIP revision related to Entergy’s Nelson 

facility. On July 13, 2017, we proposed 

to approve that SIP revision along with 

the remaining portion of the February 

2017 SIP revision that addressed SO2

and PM BART for the Nelson facility.26

Specifically, we proposed to approve 

the LDEQ SO2 and PM BART 

determinations for Nelson Units 6 and 

4, and the Unit 4 auxiliary boiler, and 

the AOC that makes the emission limits 

that represent SO2 and PM BART 

permanent and enforceable for the 

purposes of regional haze. On August 

24, 2017, we received a letter from 

LDEQ explaining their intent to revise 

the compliance date in the SIP revision 

for Nelson Unit 6 based on Entergy’s 

request for a three-year compliance 

deadline to achieve the proposed SO2

BART limit for Nelson Unit 6. On 

September 26, 2017, we supplemented 

our proposed approval of the SO2 BART 

determination for Nelson by proposing 

to approve the three-year compliance 

date. On October 26, 2017, we received 

LDEQ’s final SIP revision addressing 

Nelson, including a final AOC with 

emission limits and a SO2 compliance 

date three years from the effective date 

of the EPA’s final approval of the SIP 

revision. 

On December 21, 2017, EPA finalized 

approval 27 of the Louisiana Regional 

Haze SIP as meeting all applicable 

provisions of the CAA and EPA regional 

haze regulations. The final action 

approved the 2016 SIP revision,28 and 

the two 2017 SIP revisions 29 as 

supplemented with respect to 40 CFR 

51.308(e) and addressed all deficiencies 

identified in our two previous June 7, 

2012, and July 3, 2012, actions of the 

2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP 

submission. We finalized approval of 

the SO2, NOX, and PM BART 

determinations for the subject-to-BART 

non-EGU facilities (Phillips 66 

Company-Alliance Refinery, Mosaic, 

and Eco Services, LLC). We finalized 

our determination that the emission 

limits and operating conditions 

reflected in the AOC’s between LDEQ 

and each non-EGU facility meet the 

BART requirements. We finalized the 

reliance upon CSAPR for NOX BART 

requirements for subject-to-BART EGU 

facilities. We finalized the SO2 and PM 

BART determinations for the subject-toBART EGU facilities (Cleco Brame 

Energy Center and five Entergy 

facilities: Waterford, Willow Glen, 

Ninemile, Little Gypsy, and Nelson). We 

finalized our determination that the 

emission limits and operating 

conditions listed in the various AOCs 

between LDEQ and each EGU facility 

meet the applicable BART requirements. 

We finalized the following BART 

eligible sources being approved as not 

subject-to-BART because their 

contribution to visibility impairment 

fell below the contribution threshold 

selected by the State: Terrebonne Parish 

Consolidated Government Houma 

Generating Station (Houma), Louisiana 

Energy and Power Authority 

Plaquemine Steam Plant (Plaquemine), 

Lafayette Utilities System Louis ‘‘Doc’’ 

Bonin Generating Station, Cleco Teche, 

Entergy Sterlington, NRG Big Cajun I, 

and NRG Big Cajun II. In addition, we 

approved the core requirements for 

regional haze SIPs found in 40 CFR 

51.308(d) such as: The requirement to 

establish reasonable progress goals, the 

requirement to determine the baseline 

and natural visibility conditions, and 

the requirement to submit a long-term 

strategy; and the BART requirements for 

regional haze visibility impairment with 

respect to emissions of visibility 

impairing pollutants in 40 CFR 

51.308(e). The State fulfilled all 

outstanding obligations with respect to 

the Louisiana regional haze program for 

the first planning period. 

C. Louisiana’s Regional Haze Progress 

Report SIP 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), each state 

was required to submit a progress report 

that evaluates progress towards the 

RPGs for each Class I area within and 

outside the state which may be affected 

by emissions from within the state. In 

addition, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires 

states to submit, at the same time as the 

progress report, a determination of the 

adequacy of the state’s existing regional 

haze implementation plan.30 The 

progress report for the first planning 

period is due five years after submittal 

of the initial regional haze SIP and must 

take the form of a SIP revision. 

Louisiana submitted its initial regional 

haze SIP on June 13, 2008. 

On March 25, 2021, Louisiana 

submitted its progress report to the EPA 

in the form of a SIP revision under 40 

CFR 51.308. As described in further 

detail in section II of this proposed 

rulemaking, to address the progress 

report requirements, the State provided: 

(1) A description of the status of 

measures in the approved regional haze 

SIP; (2) a summary of emission 

reductions achieved; (3) an assessment 

of visibility conditions for the one Class 

I area in Louisiana and for one Class I 

area in Arkansas; (4) an analysis 

tracking the changes in emissions from 

sources and activities within the state; 

(5) an assessment of any significant 

changes in anthropogenic emissions 

within or outside the state that have 

limited or impeded progress in reducing 

pollutant emissions and improving 

visibility; (6) an assessment of whether 

the approved regional haze SIP elements 

and strategies are sufficient to enable 

the State (and other states with Class I 

areas affected by emissions from the 

state) to meet all established RPGs; (7) 

a review of the State’s visibility 

monitoring strategy; and (8) a 

determination of adequacy of the 

existing implementation plan. 

II. Evaluation of Louisiana’s Regional 

Haze Progress Report SIP Revision 

On March 25, 2021, the EPA received 

Louisiana’s periodic report on progress 

for the State’s regional haze SIP in the 

form of a SIP revision. That submission 

is the subject of this proposed approval. 

The periodic report for the first 

implementation period assessed 

visibility progress toward the 2018 RPG 

for the one Class I area in Louisiana and 

also assessed visibility progress for one 

Class I area in Arkansas affected by 

emissions from Louisiana. The recent 

data shows visibility improvement that 

is exceeding the visibility goals set for 

2018 and emission trends indicate that 

SO2, NOX, and PM emissions have all 

been decreasing. The EPA is, therefore, 

proposing to approve Louisiana’s 

progress report on the basis that it 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and (h), as explained in 

further detail in each subsequent 

section. 

A. Class I Areas 

Louisiana has one Class I area within 

its borders that is addressed in the 

progress report: The Breton National 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38437 

31The Breton National Wilderness Refuge has a 

total of 5,000 acres located thirty miles off the 

southeast coast of Louisiana. A small section of 

Breton National Wildlife Refuge is located on 

Breton Island which consists of two adjacent 

islands (north and south) with a combined length 

of about three miles and a width of less than one 

mile. The greater portion of the refuge consists of 

the Chandeleur Islands, an approximately twentymile-long crescent of land lying north of Breton. 

Between Breton and Chandeleur are more islands 

owned by the state and managed by the refuge. 

32Caney Creek Wilderness is located in Polk 

County, Arkansas, and covers 14,460 acres on the 

southern edge of the Ouachita National Forest and 

protects a rugged portion of the Ouachita 

Mountains. 

33 82 FR 60520. 

34Phillips 66 AOC No. AE–AOC–14–00211A; 

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC AOC No. AE–AOC–14– 

00274A; and Eco Services Operations Corp. AOC 

No. AE–AOC–14–00957. 

35See Table 2: Phillips 66 AOC Conditions (pages 

7–9) of the State’s progress report. 

36U.S. et al. v ConocoPhillips Company, Civil 

Action No. H–05–0258 (S.D. Tx). 

37See Table 3: Mosaic AOC Conditions (pages 

11–12) of the State’s progress report. 

38U.S. et al. v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Civil 

Action No. 09–6662 (E.D. La). 

39See Table 4: Eco Services AOC Conditions 

(page 14) of the State’s progress report. 

40U.S. et al. v. Rhodia Inc., Civil Action No. 

2:07CV134 WL (H.D. In). 

41 82 FR 60520 (December 21, 2017). 

42See Table 5: Sources subject-to-BART (page 15) 

of the State’s progress report. 

43U.S. et al v. Louisiana Generating, LLC, Civil 

Action No. 09–100–JJB–RLB (M.D. La.). 

Wilderness Refuge (Breton).31 Visibility 

impairment at Louisiana’s Class I area 

was tracked in units of deciviews, 

which is related to the cumulative sum 

of visibility impairment from individual 

aerosol species as measured by monitors 

in the IMPROVE Network. The State 

used the Breton IMPROVE monitor as 

well as data from a nearby monitoring 

site, the Gulfport SEARCH site, to 

supplement the Breton monitoring data. 

Through collaboration with the Central 

Regional Air Planning Association 

(CENRAP), LDEQ worked with the 

central states to assess state-by-state 

contributions to visibility impairment in 

specific Class I areas in Louisiana and 

those affected by emissions from 

Louisiana in development of the 

Regional Haze SIPs for the first planning 

period. LDEQ indicated that one Class I 

areas outside Louisiana’s borders at 

Caney Creek Wilderness area 32 in 

southwest Arkansas was impacted by 

emissions from within Louisiana. In the 

ensuing sections, we discuss how the 

State addressed the progress report 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

and (h) for these Class I areas, and we 

show our analysis and proposed 

determination as to whether the State 

satisfied the requirements. 

B. Status of Implementation of Measures 

In its progress report, Louisiana 

summarized the status of the 

implementation of measures that were 

relied upon by Louisiana in its regional 

haze plan under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to 

control visibility impairing pollutants at 

affected class I areas. The control 

measures identified by the State in the 

progress report are as follows: 

• Non-EGU Controls 

• EGU Controls 

• CAIR and CSAPR 

• Smoke Management Plan (SMP) 

• Additional Federal Measures 

1. Non-EGU Controls 

Four non-EGU facilities were 

identified as BART-eligible and LDEQ 

identified three of them as subject-toBART and required to install, operate, 

and maintain BART controls. The three 

non-EGUs identified as subject-to-BART 

were Phillips 66 Company-Alliance 

Refinery (formerly ConocoPhillips), 

Mosaic Fertilizer LLC—Uncle Sam 

Plant; Eco-Services Operations, LLC 

(formerly Rhodia). EPA approved the 

SO2, NOX, and PM BART 

determinations for these non-EGU 

facilities in the December 21, 2017 final 

action 33 along with their associated 

AOC requirements 34 that made these 

control measures permanent and 

enforceable. 

a. Phillips 66—Alliance Refinery 

Phillips 66 installed SO2, NOX, and 

PM10 controls 35 required by the 

December 5, 2005, consent decree 36 for 

22 sources. EPA approved LDEQ’s 

BART determination that the controls 

and conditions required by the consent 

decree satisfied BART. In order to make 

the limits enforceable for regional haze 

SIP purposes, Phillips 66 and LDEQ 

entered into AOC No. AE–AOC–14– 

00211A to mirror the SO2, NOX, and 

PM10 limits imposed by the consent 

decree with a compliance date of April 

29, 2016. The EPA final approval date 

was December 21, 2017, (82 FR 60520). 

b. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC 

Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC installed SO2, 

NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 controls 37

required by its December 23, 2009, 

consent decree 38 for thirteen sources 

that are a part of three sulfuric acid 

operation trains (A, D, and E), of which 

trains A and D were subject-to-BART. 

EPA approved LDEQ’s BART 

determination that the controls and 

conditions required by the consent 

decree satisfy BART. In order to make 

the limits enforceable for regional haze 

SIP purposes, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC 

and LDEQ entered into AOC No. AE– 

AOC–14–00274A to mirror the SO2, 

NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 limits imposed by 

the consent decree with a compliance 

deadline of June 6, 2016. The EPA final 

approval date was December 21, 2017 

(82 FR 60520). 

c. Eco Services Operations Corp. 

Eco Services Operations Corp. 

installed SO2 controls 39 required by its 

July 23, 2007, consent decree 40 for two 

sulfuric acid production trains, Unit 1 

and Unit 2 (only Unit 2 is subject-toBART). The consent decree required a 

scrubber to be installed on each of the 

units to control SO2 emissions. EPA 

approved LDEQ’s BART determination 

that the controls and conditions 

required by the consent decree satisfy 

BART. In order to make the limits 

enforceable for regional haze SIP 

purposes, Eco Services Operations Corp. 

and LDEQ entered into AOC No. AE– 

AOC–14–00957 to mirror the SO2 limits 

imposed by the consent decree with a 

compliance deadline of August 8, 2016. 

The EPA final approval date was 

December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60520). 

2. EGU Controls 

Seventeen EGU facilities were 

identified as BART-eligible and LDEQ 

identified seven of those EGU facilities 

as being subject-to-BART and required 

to install BART controls: Cleco Brame 

Energy Center and six different Entergy 

facilities (Little Gypsy, Ninemile Point, 

Waterford, Willow Glen, Michoud, and 

Nelson). EPA approved the SO2 and PM 

BART determinations for these EGU 

facilities in the December 21, 2017, final 

action 41 along with their associated 

AOC requirements that made the control 

measures permanent and enforceable. In 

addition, as described below, EPA 

approved emission limits for NRG Big 

Cajun II, a BART eligible EGU source 

that screened out of being subject-toBART. 

a. NRG Big Cajun II 

NRG Big Cajun II installed SO2, NOX, 

PM10, and PM2.5 controls 42 required by 

its March 6, 2013, consent decree 43 for 

two BART-eligible EGU coal-fired 

sources (Unit 1 and Unit 2). The consent 

decree required Louisiana Generating to 

refuel coal-fired Unit 2 to natural gas 

and install and continuously operate 

dry sorbent injection (DSI) at Unit 1 

while maintaining a thirty-day rolling 

average SO2 emission rate of no greater 

than 0.380 lb/MMBtu by no later than 

April 15, 2015. In addition to requiring 

DSI, the consent decree required 

Louisiana Generating to retire, refuel, 

repower, or retrofit Unit 1 by no later 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
38438 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

44See Table 6: Brame Summary of AOC 

Conditions (page 17) of the State’s Progress Report. 45 82 FR 22943 (May 19, 2017). 

than April 1, 2025. Louisiana 

Generating is required to notify EPA of 

which option it will select to comply 

with this condition no later than 

December 31, 2022. LDEQ’s modeling 

demonstrated that, based on these 

existing controls and enforceable 

emission limits, Big Cajun II contributes 

less than 0.5 dv at impacted Class I 

areas, and therefore the facility is not 

subject to BART. NRG Big Cajun II and 

LDEQ agreed to make the consent 

decree limits enforceable for regional 

haze SIP purposes, and entered into an 

AOC (unnumbered) to mirror the SO2, 

NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 limits imposed by 

the consent decree with a compliance 

deadline of February 9, 2017. The EPA 

final approval date was December 21, 

2017 (82 FR 60520). 

b. Cleco—Brame Energy Center 

The Cleco Brame Energy Center 

addressed SO2 and PM10 BART controls 

for two subject-to-BART EGU boilers, 

Nesbitt 1 and Rodemacher 2 units. The 

Nesbitt 1 boiler was permitted to burn 

natural gas or oil and did not have any 

air pollution controls installed. Cleco 

committed to burn only natural gas until 

a five-factor BART analysis for the fueloil-firing scenario was submitted to 

LDEQ and included in an EPA approved 

SIP revision. To make the prohibition 

on fuel-oil usage at this unit 

enforceable, Cleco and LDEQ entered an 

AOC (unnumbered) that established 

enforceable SO2 and PM10 limits, 

consistent with the exclusive use of 

natural gas for the Nesbitt 1 boiler. The 

Rodemacher 2 boiler has an enhanced 

DSI system for SO2 control. The 

Rodemacher 2 boiler also has an 

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and a 

fabric filter baghouse downstream of the 

DSI system for PM control. These 

controls offer the necessary controls for 

SO2 and PM10 BART for the 

Rodemacher 2 boiler. Therefore, 

emission limits were established 

consistent with these controls and 

included in the AOC to make the limits 

enforceable for regional haze purposes. 

The AOC also allowed the Rodemacher 

2 boiler to meet the SO2 and PM10

emissions limits by conversion to 

natural gas only, unit retirement, or 

another means of achieving compliance 

with the emission limits. The 

compliance deadline of the AOC was 

February 9, 2017.44 The EPA final 

approval date was December 21, 2017 

(82 FR 60520). 

c. Entergy—Willow Glen 

Entergy addressed SO2 and PM10

BART controls for multiple EGU boiler 

units subject-to-BART (Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 

and the Auxiliary Boiler) at the Willow 

Glen facility. Each was permitted to 

burn fuel oil, but Entergy agreed to an 

AOC (unnumbered) signed February 9, 

2017, to require a five-factor BART 

analysis for the fuel-oil firing scenario to 

be submitted to LDEQ and included in 

an EPA approved SIP revision before 

fuel-oil combustion would occur at the 

Willow Glen facility. No additional 

controls for the Willow Glen units 

would be required when burning 

natural gas. EPA approved LDEQ’s 

determination that SO2 and PM10 BART 

for Willow Glen was addressed by this 

operational scenario.45 However, as of 

May 31, 2016, Willow Glen was 

decommissioned, and the Title V 

operating permit was rescinded on June 

6, 2018. Emissions have ceased since 

2016, so the facility remains in 

compliance with the AOC which had a 

compliance deadline of February 9, 

2017. The EPA final approval date was 

December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60520). 

d. Entergy—Little Gypsy 

Entergy addressed SO2 and PM10

BART controls for three subject-toBART EGU boiler units at its Little 

Gypsy facility (Units 2, 3, and the 

Auxiliary Boiler). The Unit 2 boiler was 

permitted to burn natural gas as its 

primary fuel, and No. 2 and No. 4 fuel 

oil as secondary fuels. The Unit 3 boiler 

burns natural gas but was also permitted 

to burn fuel oil. The auxiliary boiler for 

Unit 3 is permitted to burn only natural 

gas. While no additional controls were 

determined to be necessary when 

burning natural gas, Entergy agreed to 

switch to ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) 

fuel oil. In order to make the use of 

ULSD enforceable for regional haze 

purposes, LDEQ and Entergy entered 

into an AOC with a compliance 

deadline of February 13, 2017, limiting 

fuel oil to ULSD. The EPA final 

approval date was December 21, 2017 

(82 FR 60520). 

e. Entergy—Ninemile Point 

Entergy addressed SO2 and PM10

BART controls for two subject-to-BART 

EGU boiler units at its Ninemile Point 

facility (Units 4 and 5). The Unit 4 

boiler burned primarily natural gas and 

No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oil. The Unit 5 

boiler burned primarily natural gas and 

No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oil. While no 

additional controls were determined to 

be necessary when burning natural gas, 

Entergy agreed to switch to ULSD fuel 

oil. In order to make the use of ULSD 

enforceable for regional haze purposes, 

LDEQ and Entergy entered into an AOC 

(unnumbered) with a compliance 

deadline of February 9, 2017, limiting 

fuel oil to ULSD with a sulfur content 

of 0.0015%. The EPA final approval 

date was December 21, 2017 (82 FR 

60520). 

f. Entergy—Waterford 1 and 2 

Entergy addressed SO2 and PM10

BART controls for three subject-toBART EGU boiler units at its Waterford 

1 & 2 Generating Plant facility (Units 1 

and 2 and the auxiliary boiler). The Unit 

1 boiler is an EGU boiler that burned 

primarily natural gas and No. 6 fuel oil 

as its secondary fuel. The Unit 2 boiler 

is an EGU boiler that burned primarily 

natural gas and No. 6 fuel oil as its 

secondary fuel. The auxiliary boiler 

burns only natural gas. While no 

additional controls were determined to 

be necessary when burning natural gas, 

Entergy agreed to switch to fuel oil with 

a lower sulfur content. In order to make 

the lower sulfur content fuel enforceable 

for regional haze purposes, LDEQ and 

Entergy entered into an AOC with a 

compliance deadline of February 9, 

2017, limiting fuel oil to a sulfur content 

of 1% or less. The EPA final approval 

date was December 21, 2017 (82 FR 

60520). 

g. Entergy—Michoud 

Entergy addressed SO2, NOX, and PM 

BART controls for two subject-to-BART 

EGU boiler units at its Michoud 

Generating Plant (Units 2 and 3). In a 

letter dated August 10, 2016, Entergy 

elected to permanently retire Units 2 

and 3 effective June 1, 2016. 

Subsequently, the Title V Operating 

Permit was modified to remove these 

units effective January 31, 2019. All 

SO2, PM, and NOX emissions from Units 

2 and 3 at Michoud have ceased after 

2016 and the boilers are no longer in 

operation. The EPA final approval date 

was December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60520). 

h. Entergy—Nelson 

Entergy addressed SO2 and PM10

BART controls for three subject-toBART boiler units at its Roy S. Nelson 

steam electric power generating facility 

(Unit 4 and 6 Boilers, and Unit 4 

Auxiliary Boiler). The required SO2 and 

PM10 BART controls preclude fuel-oil 

combustion at Unit 4 and the Unit 4 

Auxiliary boiler. To make the 

prohibition on fuel-oil usage enforceable 

for regional haze purposes, Entergy and 

LDEQ entered into an AOC 

(unnumbered) that established that 

before fuel-oil firing is allowed to take 

place at Unit 4 and the auxiliary boiler, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38439 

46See Table 7: Nelson Summary of AOC Limits 

(page 23) of the State’s progress report. 

47See 70 FR 25161 (May 12, 2005). 

48See 70 FR 39104, 39139 (July 6, 2005). 

49See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) (2006). 

50North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 901 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008), modified, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). 

51 76 FR 48207 (August 8, 2011). 

52While that rulemaking also promulgated FIPs 

for several states to replace reliance on CAIR with 

reliance on CSAPR as an alternative to BART, it did 

not include a FIP for Louisiana. (see 77 FR 33642, 

33654). 

53The rule provides flexibility to affected sources, 

allowing sources in each state to determine their 

own compliance path. This includes adding or 

operating control technologies, upgrading or 

improving controls, switching fuels, and using 

allowances. Sources can buy and sell allowances 

and bank (save) allowances for future use as long 

as each source holds enough allowances to account 

for its emissions by the end of the compliance 

period. 

54See 81 FR 74504. On October 26, 2016, we 

finalized an update to CSAPR that addresses the 

1997 O3 NAAQS portion of the remand as well as 

the CAA requirements addressing interstate 

transport for the 2008 O3 NAAQS. 

55CSAPR has been subject to extensive litigation, 

and on July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a 

decision generally upholding CSAPR but 

remanding without vacating the CSAPR emissions 

budgets for a number of states. Louisiana’s O3

season NOX budgets were not included in the 

remand. EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 795 

F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

56See Figure 12: Combined Annual Emissions 

from Major Stationary BART Sources (page 26) of 

the progress report. 

57See Figures 1 to 11 of the progress report (pages 

10 to 23). 

a revised BART determination must be 

promulgated for SO2 and PM10 for the 

fuel oil firing scenario through a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) or a SIP 

revision approved by the EPA that is 

federally enforceable. For the Unit 6 

boiler, the facility accepted SO2 and 

PM10 limits consistent with the 

utilization of coal with a lower sulfur 

content.46 These limits are in addition 

to existing controls for PM10 and NOX: 

ESP with flue gas conditioning for PM10

control, and Separated Overfire Air 

Technology (SOFA) with Low NOX

Concentric Firing System (LNCFS) for 

NOX control. The AOC (unnumbered) 

compliance deadline for the Unit 4 

boiler was on October 26, 2017, and for 

the Unit 6 boiler was on January 21, 

2021. The EPA final approval date was 

December 21, 2017 (82 FR 60520). 

3. CAIR and CSAPR 

In 2005, the EPA issued CAIR,47

which participating states could rely on 

in lieu of BART for EGUs.48 CAIR was 

designed to address power plant 

pollution transported from one state to 

another via a cap-and-trade system to 

reduce SO2 and NOX emissions as the 

target pollutants. LDEQ’s 2008 regional 

haze SIP revision relied on participation 

in CAIR as an alternative to meeting the 

source specific EGU BART requirements 

for SO2 and NOX.49 In December 2008, 

shortly after LDEQ submitted its SIP to 

EPA, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to 

the EPA, leaving existing CAIR 

programs in place while directing the 

EPA to replace them with a new rule.50

So although CAIR was remanded, CAIR 

remained in effect and sources in 

Louisiana continued to comply with the 

state and federal requirements 

associated with CAIR. In 2011, EPA 

promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR.51

In 2012, EPA amended the Regional 

Haze Rule to allow CSAPR participation 

as an alternative to source-specific SO2

and NOX BART for EGUs on a pollutantspecific basis.52 CSAPR requires 28 

eastern states to reduce power plant 

emissions that contribute to O3 and 

PM2.5 pollution in other states. The rule 

requires reductions in O3 season NOX

emissions that cross state lines for 

certain states, including Louisiana, 

under the O3 requirements, and 

reductions in annual SO2 and NOX

emissions for certain states, not 

including Louisiana, under the PM2.5

requirements. LDEQ established 

reliance upon CSAPR for O3 season NOX

as an alternative to meet the NOX BART 

requirements for their EGU sources. The 

EPA set emission budgets for each state 

covered by CSAPR. Allowances are 

allocated to affected sources based on 

these state emission budgets.53 Since 

promulgating the use of CSAPR as an 

alternative to source-specific BART for 

EGUs, the EPA has promulgated an 

update to the CSAPR program with 

more stringent budgets.54 The CSAPR 

update revised the O3 season NOX

budget for Louisiana’s EGUs to 18,639 

tons NOX in 2017 and beyond.55

Participation in CSAPR for O3 season 

NOX is federally enforceable under 40 

CFR 52.38. 

4. Smoke Management Plan (SMP) 

The progress report states that the 

State is also relying on a Smoke 

Management Program (SMP) that it 

adopted (effective July 1, 2012). LDEQ 

implements controlled and openburning practices within the state. The 

Louisiana SMP was designed to assure 

that prescribed fires are planned and 

executed in a manner designed to 

minimize the impacts from smoke 

produced by prescribed fires. The 

programs in this measure are generally 

designed to limit increases in emissions 

rather than to reduce existing emissions. 

5. Additional Federal Measures 

The State of Louisiana also 

considered in its progress report the 

following ongoing pollution control 

programs for continuing emission 

reductions as supplements to the 

regional haze plan: 

• Permitting to ensure compliance 

wth New Source Performance standards 

(NSPS) and National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP). 

• Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) requirements. 

• National Petroleum Refinery 

Initiative. 

• Mobile Emissions Regulations. 

• National Petroleum Refinery 

Initiative. 

6. EPA’s Conclusion on the Status of 

Implementation of Measures 

The EPA proposes to find that the 

State has adequately addressed the 

applicable provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g) regarding reporting the status 

of implementation of measures in its 

implementation plan. The State’s 

progress report documented the status 

of all measures included in its regional 

haze SIP and it also described 

additional measures that came into 

effect since the State’s regional haze SIP 

was completed, including various 

federal measures. All major control 

measures were identified in each SIP 

revision and the strategy behind each 

control was explained. The State 

included a summary of the 

implementation status associated with 

each measure and adequately outlined 

the compliance timeframe for all 

controls. 

C. Emissions Reductions From 

Implementation of Measures 

The State presented emission data in 

its progress report that provided a 

summary of the emission trends and 

reductions achieved through the 

implementation of the BART controls 

that were required to be installed, 

operated, and maintained in the 

regional haze SIP to control the 

visibility impairing pollutants 

contributing to haze. The State provided 

combined annual emission trends of 

SO2, NOX, PM2.5, and PM10 for all eleven 

subject-to-BART EGU and non-EGU 

facilities included in section II.B of this 

action from 2000 to 2019.56 The State 

also provided figures depicting the 

annual emission trends applicable to 

each subject-to-BART facility.57 The 

overall combined annual emissions for 

each pollutant trended downward from 

the baseline since 2008. The State 

quantified the emission reductions 

achieved by comparing the five-year 

average from the baseline (2004–2008) 

to the five-year average at the end of the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
38440 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

58See Table 8 of the progress report (page 26). 59Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division 

www.epa.gov/airmarkt/. 60The most and least impaired days in the 

regional haze rule refers to the average visibility 

impairment (measured in dv) for the twenty percent 

of monitored days in a calendar year with the 

highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment, 

respectively, averaged over a five-year period (see 

40 CFR 51.301). In this report, when we refer to 

‘‘best days’’ we mean ‘‘least impaired’’ and when 

we refer to ‘‘worst days’’ we mean ‘‘most impaired.’’ 

61See Table 15: Visibility Index at Breton of the 

progress report (pages 31). 62Note that the period for establishing baseline 

visibility conditions is 2000–2004. The Breton 

IMPROVE monitor did not meet the data capture 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule for the 

2000–2004 monitoring period; however, data from 

a nearby monitoring site, the Gulfport SEARCH site, 

was used to supplement the Breton monitoring data 

to establish the baseline. 

63Progress reports for the first implementation 

period used specific terms to describe time-periods. 

‘‘Baseline visibility conditions’’ refers to conditions 

during the 2000 to 2004 time-period. ‘‘Current 

visibility conditions’’ refers to the most recent fiveyear average data available at the time the State 

submitted its progress report for public review. 

‘‘Past five years’’ refers to the five-year average 

previous to the five years used for ‘‘current visibility 

conditions.’’ 

first implementation period (2015– 

2019).58 The five-year average emission 

reductions achieved since the baseline 

from the subject-to-BART controls 

included 13,195 tons NOX, 41,264 tons 

SO2, 1,367 tons PM10, and 356 tons 

PM2.5 (see Table 1). 

TABLE 1—FIVE YEAR AVERAGE EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM BART SOURCES FOR 2004–2008 AND 2015–2019 

Year NOX PM10 PM2.5 SO2

2004–2008 Average ........................................................................................................ 37,532 3,782 2,009 70,902 

2015–2019 Average ........................................................................................................ 24,338 2,415 1,652 29,638 

Change ..................................................................................................................... ¥13,195 ¥1,367 ¥356 ¥41,264 

In addition to the emission reductions 

from BART controls, the CSAPR update 

revised the O3 season NOX budget for 

Louisiana units to 18,639 tons NOX in 

2017 and beyond. The 2019 actual O3

season emission for Louisiana totaled 

17,751 tons NOX for 88 different 

sources.59 The State noted that, along 

with the replacement of CAIR with 

CSAPR, there have been many ongoing 

air pollution programs that supplement 

the regional haze program since 

submittal of Louisiana’s Regional Haze 

SIP in 2008. These programs include 

adoption of a SMP that was effective 

July 1, 2012, NSPS and NESHAP 

permitting, PSD regulatory 

requirements, the National Petroleum 

Refinery Initiative, mobile emissions 

regulations, and the National Petroleum 

Refinery Initiative. Louisiana noted that 

these additional federal air pollution 

programs are anticipated to result in 

even greater emission reductions that 

could result in further visibility 

improvement than the programs in 

place when the 2008 Louisiana Regional 

Haze SIP revision was submitted to the 

EPA. 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

the State has adequately addressed the 

applicable provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g) regarding a summary of 

emission reductions achieved for 

visibility impairing pollutants. Overall, 

the State demonstrated the emission 

reductions achieved for the major 

contributing visibility impairing 

pollutants in the State for the first 

implementation period. Emissions of 

SO2, NOX, and PM, the top three main 

contributors to regional haze in 

Louisiana, have all decreased from the 

2002 baseline levels through 2019. 

Overall visibility conditions have 

improved as a result of these reductions 

together with decreases from outside of 

the state. 

D. Visibility Conditions and Changes 

Louisiana included in its progress 

report the annual average visibility from 

2001 to 2018 for the twenty percent best 

(least impaired) and twenty percent 

worst (most impaired) days at Breton 

National Wilderness Refuge.60 Although 

visibility conditions have varied from 

year-to-year, the progress report showed 

that Breton has displayed an overall 

improvement in visibility since 2001.61

LDEQ reported that Breton showed 

improved visibility from the 2000 to 

2004 baseline 62 during the worst days 

for the most current period (2014 to 

2018).63 Breton area also showed 

improvement from the baseline on the 

twenty percent best days and satisfied 

the goal of no visibility degradation for 

the first implementation period. The 

progress report showed that the 

visibility at Breton during the 2014– 

2018 period was 5.02 dv below the 

2000–2004 baseline for the twenty 

percent worst days and 1.31 dv below 

the baseline for the twenty percent best 

days as reflected in Tables 2 and 3 

below. 

TABLE 2—VISIBILITY AT BRETON NATIONAL WILDERNESS FOR TWENTY PERCENT BEST DAYS

[Five-year avg.] 

Class I area 

Baseline 

(2000–2004) 

(dv) 

Most recent 

(2014–2018) 

(dv) 

Most recent 

minus baseline 

(dv) 

Breton National Wilderness Refuge ............................................................................................ 13.12 11.81 ¥1.31 

* A negative sign indicates a reduction from the baseline. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38441 

64See Figure 13: NEI Anthropogenic Emissions 

Totals (page 27) of the progress report. 

65See Tables 9 to 11 (page 28) of the progress 

report. 

66See Table 16: Total Light Extinction and 

Composition at Breton (page 33) of the progress 

report. 

TABLE 3—VISIBILITY AT BRETON NATIONAL WILDERNESS FOR TWENTY PERCENT WORST DAYS

[Five-year avg.] 

Class I area 

Baseline 

(2000–2004) 

(dv) 

Most recent 

(2014–2018) 

(dv) 

Most recent 

minus baseline 

(dv) 

Breton National Wilderness Refuge ............................................................................................ 25.73 20.71 ¥5.02 

* A negative sign indicates a reduction from the baseline. 

When comparing the 2018 RPG of 

22.51 dv with the observed five-year 

visibility trends, Breton is realizing 

more visibility improvement than 

needed to meet the 2018 RPG. The 

average visibility condition at Breton 

during the 2014 to 2018 period for the 

twenty percent worst days was 1.8 dv 

below the 2018 RPG. Therefore, the EPA 

proposes to conclude that the State has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) with 

respect to visibility conditions at 

Louisiana’s Class I area. 

E. Emission Tracking 

In its progress report, the State 

presented National Emission Inventory 

(NEI) total combined anthropogenic 

emissions for the criteria pollutants for 

2002, 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017. The 

baseline 2000 to 2004 period was 

represented by the 2002 NEI. The most 

recent NEI inventory available at the 

time of development of the progress 

report to represent current emissions 

was from the draft 2017 NEI. The overall 

total combined anthropogenic emissions 

of CO, SO2, NH3, PM, NOX, and VOC 

were depicted in a stacked bar chart 64

in the progress report and showed a 

total emission decrease from the 2002 

base year period to the most recent 2017 

inventory year. The State noted, 

however, that there was a slight increase 

in emissions in 2008 in the chart that 

could be attributed to normal growth 

that preceded the implementation of 

controls from the 2008 Regional Haze 

SIP. A more significant increase in 

combined anthropogenic emissions 

occurred in 2011. The State attributed 

that increase to a change in 

methodology using the EPA Oil and Gas 

tool for estimating emissions from oil 

and gas production facilities. That tool 

was developed for the 2011 NEI and 

used for all subsequent NEIs. A 

downward trend was shown from 2011 

to 2017, which the State made as the 

focus of the progress report. The State 

noted that despite the significant 

increase in 2011, the 2014 and 2017 NEI 

total combined anthropogenic emissions 

reduced to lower than the emissions in 

2008 when the original SIP was 

submitted. That trend reflects the 

implementation of controls from the 

Louisiana Regional Haze SIP. Also, the 

2017 NEI emissions were well below the 

2002 NEI baseline totals. 

In order to further evaluate the 

effectiveness of the 2018 Regional Haze 

SIP for the most recent five-year period, 

LDEQ compared categorized 

anthropogenic emission inventories for 

2011 and 2017.65 The pollutants 

inventoried included SO2, NOX, NH3, 

VOC, CO, PM2.5, and PM10. The 

inventories were categorized for all 

major visibility-impairing pollutants 

under major anthropogenic source 

groupings. The anthropogenic source 

categorization included point and nonpoint sources, on and non-road mobile 

sources, and area sources. A reduction 

in the total emissions for each of the 

criteria pollutants was observed over the 

six-year period from 2011 to 2017 as 

seen in Table 4. The pollutants of 

concern for haze in Louisiana, SO2, 

NOX, and PM10 were collectively 

reduced by nearly 505,305 tons. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2011 TO 2017 ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS

[tpy] * 

Inventory year VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2 CO 

2011 ....................................................................... 426,115 558,235 125,749 395,370 56,742 274,588 1,195,493 

2017 ....................................................................... 260,746 331,115 78,455 252,843 45,959 141,930 788,471 

D 2011–2017 ................................................... ¥165,369 ¥227,120 ¥47,294 ¥145,527 ¥10,783 ¥132,658 ¥407,022 

* Table 11 of the progress report SIP submittal showed incorrect emission reduction totals for 2011 and 2017, but the corrected totals calculated from Tables 9 and 10 are shown in this table. 

A similar comparison of the 2017 NEI 

emissions and the 2018 projected 

emissions provides a look at the change 

in actual emissions to what was 

originally projected for 2018 for the 

purpose of Regional Haze SIP 

development. As shown in Table 5 of 

this action, the total NEI actual 

emissions from all criteria pollutants 

was less. The NEI actual emission 

reductions surpassed the projected 

emissions for VOC, NOX, PM2.5, SO2, 

and CO significantly. The total PM10

emissions were not reduced as 

dramatically as projected, but the State 

noted that was likely impacted by the 

increase in oil and gas emissions 

unaccounted for at the time of the 2008 

Regional Haze SIP revisions. The actual 

2017 NEI emissions for NOX and SO2

totaled 515,805 tons less than what was 

projected for 2018. That difference far 

outweighs the higher actual tons of 

PM10 emissions than projected for PM10

because sulfate and nitrate particulate 

from SO2 and NOX emissions make up 

83% of the composition of the light 

extinction contributing to haze at 

Breton.66


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

I I I I I I I 
38442 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

67See Pages 41–42 of the progress report. 

68See October 27, 2016, proposed approval (81 

FR 74750) for the BART determinations for nonEGU facilities; the May 19, 2017, proposed approval 

(82 FR 22936) for the BART determinations for EGU 

facilities, and the July 13, 2017, proposed approval 

(82 FR 32294) for BART determination for Nelson 

Unit 6. 

69See December 21, 2017, final approval (82 FR 

60520) of these SIP revisions which became 

effective on January 22, 2018. 

70See Table 15 of the progress report (page 31). 

71See Figure 17: Caney Creek Reasonable 

Progress Goals (page 42) of the progress report. See 

spreadsheet, visibility-progress.xlsx, provided at 

https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/ 

regional-haze.aspx. 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2017 NEI ACTUAL EMISSIONS AND 2018 PROJECTED EMISSIONS

[tpy] 

Inventory VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2 CO 

2017 NEI actual Emissions .................................... 260,746 331,115 78,455 252,843 45,959 141,930 788,471 

Projected 2018 Emissions ..................................... 399,975 535,080 84,581 99,933 56,839 453,770 1,367,027 

D 2017 NEI—Projected 2018 ......................... ¥139,229 ¥203,965 ¥6,126 152,910 ¥10,880 ¥311,840 ¥578,556 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

the State has adequately addressed the 

applicable provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g). The State tracked changes in 

emissions by category across the entire 

emission inventory and the results 

showed that the emissions from SO2, 

NOX, and PM, the main contributors of 

regional haze in Louisiana, have all 

decreased since the 2008 SIP submittal. 

The 2011 to 2017 analysis included the 

most recent five-year period for which 

data was available. These data indicated 

that overall emissions of all visibility 

impairing pollutants reduced. SO2, 

NOX, and PM emissions have continued 

to show a downward trend since 2011, 

which supports that the controls 

included as part of the 2008 Regional 

Haze long-term strategy were effective 

in reducing emissions. The EPA 

concludes that the State presented an 

adequate analysis tracking emission 

trends for the key visibility impairing 

pollutants across Louisiana. 

F. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

The State indicated in the progress 

report 67 that there were no significant 

changes in anthropogenic emissions that 

limited or impeded progress in reducing 

pollutant emissions and improving 

visibility at the State’s one Class I area 

that were not already contemplated in 

the 2008 Louisiana Regional Haze SIP 

and subsequent revisions. Breton 

National Wilderness Refuge has shown 

overall downward trends in visibility 

impairment as a result of the 

implemented controls in Louisiana and 

other states. The State’s current analysis 

of emission reductions and categorized 

inventories presented in the progress 

report showed that no significant 

changes in emissions within the state 

occurred to further impede or adversely 

affect the visibility improvement at 

Breton. It was also determined that 

additional emission reductions from 

other states were not necessary to 

address visibility impairment at Breton 

for the first implementation period. No 

significant emission changes from 

sources outside of Louisiana were 

identified that limited or impeded 

progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions and improving visibility at 

Breton. EPA proposes to conclude that 

the State has adequately addressed the 

applicable provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g) regarding assessing any 

changes that could impede visibility 

progress. 

G. Assessment of Current Strategy To 

Meet RPGs 

In its progress report, the State 

assessed the strategies in the Louisiana 

Regional Haze SIP and subsequent 

revisions. The State determined that the 

strategies were sufficient to enable 

Louisiana and other states with Class I 

areas affected by emissions from 

Louisiana to meet all established RPGs. 

Louisiana’s Regional Haze SIP 

revisions,68 which EPA finalized 

approval on December 21, 2017,69

outlined control measures to improve 

visibility by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions of SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and NOX. 

Specific regional haze BART controls 

and enforceable limits were imposed on 

eleven major stationary sources (three 

non-EGU sources and eight EGU 

sources) and resulted in a decrease in 

the target pollutants. Actual point 

source emissions from 2002–2017 were 

reduced as follows; SO2 emissions were 

reduced by 61% (214,227 tons); NOX

emissions were reduced by 55% 

(177,384 tons); PM10 emissions were 

reduced by 34% (10,212 tons); and 

PM2.5 emissions were reduced by 23% 

(9,458 tons). Currently, Breton National 

Wilderness Refuge is achieving greater 

visibility improvement than its 2018 

RPG.70 Based on available monitored 

data, Breton is realizing more visibility 

improvement than needed to meet its 

2018 RPG. The current visibility 

trendline is 1.8 dv below the respective 

2018 RPG of 22.51 dv from the baseline 

conditions and visibility is continuing 

to improve. 

LDEQ acknowledged in the progress 

report that sources in Louisiana have 

the potential to impact one Class I area 

in Arkansas, Caney Creek Wilderness 

Area. No specific emissions from 

Louisiana sources were identified in 

Arkansas’ plan that would prevent or 

inhibit reasonable progress at Caney 

Creek or any other mandatory federal 

Class I areas in Arkansas. Emissions 

from Louisiana were below the 2018 

projected levels relied on for planning 

by Arkansas for the first planning 

period. Arkansas stated in its August 8, 

2018, Regional Haze SIP Revision that 

Arkansas is already on track to meet or 

exceed the established reasonable 

progress goals for Caney Creek.71 When 

comparing the revised 2018 RPG with 

the observed five-year visibility trend, 

Caney Creek is already realizing more 

visibility improvement than needed to 

meet the revised 2018 RPG. The 

visibility index at Caney Creek during 

the 2012–2016 period (the most current 

five-year period at the time of the 

submittal) was 20.64 dv, which is 1.83 

dv below the 2018 revised RPG of 22.47 

dv, and visibility is continuing to 

improve. 

The EPA proposes to conclude that 

the State has adequately addressed the 

applicable provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g) to assess the current strategy 

to meet the RPGs. The State has 

assessed the implementation plan in 

place at the time that its progress report 

was submitted, and we find that the 

implementation plan as it currently 

exists is sufficient to enable the state of 

Louisiana and other nearby states to 

meet their RPGs. The realized and 

planned controls and reductions that 

form the current strategy for the first 

implementation period are sufficient to 

meet the RPGs as established in the 

Louisiana Regional Haze SIP (including 

all revisions). Breton National 

Wilderness Refuge in Louisiana is 

currently meeting the 2018 RPG for the 

twenty percent worst days and shows 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

I I I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38443 

72See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). Data from 

IMPROVE show that visibility impairment caused 

by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most 

national parks and wilderness areas. The average 

visual range in many Class I areas (i.e., national 

parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size criteria) in 

the western United States is 100–150 km, or about 

one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would 

exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most 

of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the 

average visual range is less than 30 km, or about 

one-fifth of the visual range that would exist 

underestimated natural conditions. 

73http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/DataWarehouse/ 

IMPROVE/Data/SummaryData/RHRl2018/SIAl

grouplmeansl12l19l2p.csv. 

74The State noted that the Breton IMPROVE 

monitor did not meet the data capture requirements 

of the Regional Haze Rule for the 2000–2004 

baseline monitoring period, so data from a nearby 

monitoring site, the Gulfport SEARCH site, was 

used to supplement the Breton monitoring data to 

establish the baseline. 

75http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPROVE/Data/ 

NaturalConditions/NaturalConditionsII_Format2_

v2.xls. 

76See Figure 15 and Tables 16 through 23 (pages 

32–40) of the progress report. 

that the goal of no visibility degradation 

for the twenty percent best days is also 

being achieved. Caney Creek Wilderness 

area in Arkansas is also on track to 

achieve its visibility reduction goals. 

H. Review of Visibility Monitoring 

Strategy 

The monitoring strategy for regional 

haze in Louisiana relies upon 

participation in the IMPROVE 72

network, which is the primary 

monitoring network for regional haze 

nationwide. The IMPROVE network 

provides a long-term record for tracking 

visibility improvement or degradation. 

LDEQ currently relies on data collected 

through the IMPROVE network to 

satisfy the regional haze monitoring 

requirement as specified in 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule. 

In Louisiana, there is one active 

IMPROVE site monitor (AQS ID: 22– 

071–9000) located in Orleans County 

and represents the 5,000 acres of the 

Breton National Wilderness Refuge. 

In the progress report, LDEQ reported 

observed visibility data annually for the 

Breton National Wilderness Refuge to 

the EPA from the IMPROVE dataset.73

LDEQ tracked the annual visibility 

index at Breton from 2001 to 2018 and 

reported five-year visibility trends for 

comparison of baseline, current, and 

natural conditions. LDEQ continues to 

track these visibility trends at Breton 

and identified no future changes in this 

network. Baseline and natural 

conditions for visibility progress 

comparisons were made using the 2008 

SIP revision, when available. Otherwise, 

baseline 74 and natural conditions 

values were also from the IMPROVE 

dataset.75 The Breton IMPROVE monitor 

also quantified aerosol species that were 

related to visibility impairment. The 

aerosol species collected at Breton for 

regional haze purposes included 

ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, 

organic mass, elemental carbon, fine 

soil, coarse mass, and sea salt. The 

major cause of reduced visibility at 

Breton was identified as sulfate 

particles, formed principally from 

SO2.76 The EPA proposes to conclude 

that the State has adequately addressed 

the applicable provision under 40 CFR 

51.308 for a visibility monitoring 

strategy. 

I. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Implementation Plan 

Louisiana provided a negative 

declaration stating that the Louisiana 

Regional Haze SIP is adequate and no 

further substantive revisions are needed 

at this time. Since the original Louisiana 

Regional Haze SIP submission in 2008, 

the State submitted three subsequent 

SIP revisions to fulfill its commitment 

to address all of the deficiencies 

identified in our two previous June 7, 

2012, and July 3, 2012, actions on the 

2008 SIP. Specific controls and 

enforceable limits were imposed on 

eleven major stationary sources that 

resulted in a significant decrease in 

visibility impairing pollutants. These 

controls, approved by EPA, included 

BART reductions on eight EGU sources 

and three non-EGU sources. When 

considering the SIP requirements that 

we approved in these SIP revisions 

along with the visibility and emission 

information provided in the progress 

report; it is clear that the 

implementation plan is adequate to 

meet its emission reductions and 

visibility goals for the first 

implementation period. Current 

visibility conditions in Louisiana have 

improved beyond the 2018 RPGs. 

Visibility has also improved at the one 

Arkansas Class I areas affected by 

Louisiana sources. The current emission 

trends show that SO2, NOX, and PM 

emissions (the main contributors to 

regional haze in Louisiana) have all 

been decreasing since the baseline 

period. The emission reductions 

necessary for meeting the established 

RPGs were achieved and exceeded the 

established goals. Because the SIP will 

ensure the control of SO2, NOX, and PM 

emission reductions relied upon by 

Louisiana and other states in setting 

their RPGs, the EPA is proposing to 

approve Louisiana’s finding that there is 

no need for revision of the existing 

implementation plan to achieve the 

RPGs for the Class I areas in Louisiana 

and in nearby states impacted by 

Louisiana sources. We, therefore, 

propose to approve Louisiana’s negative 

declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h) that 

no further substantive revisions are 

needed. 

J. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

The Regional Haze Rule requires the 

State to provide the designated Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) with an 

opportunity for in-person consultation 

at least sixty days prior to holding any 

public hearings on a SIP revision for the 

first implementation period. Louisiana 

invited the FLMs to comment on its 

draft progress report on October 29, 

2020, which was sixty days prior to the 

public review comment period on 

December 28, 2020. No comments were 

received from the Federal Land 

managers. The EPA proposes to 

conclude that Louisiana has adequately 

addressed the applicable FLM 

provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

III. EPA’s Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

Louisiana’s regional haze five-year 

progress report SIP revision (submitted 

March 25, 2021) as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The EPA 

is also proposing to approve Louisiana’s 

determination of adequacy under 40 

CFR 51.308(h) that no further 

substantive revisions are needed. Lastly, 

the EPA is proposing to find that 

Louisiana fulfilled its requirement in 40 

CFR 51.308(i) regarding state 

coordination with FLMs. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
38444 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed 

rulemaking does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Best Available 

Retrofit Technology, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur 

dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 15, 2021. 

David Gray, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15395 Filed 7–20–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS